Speculation arising from the Paradoxical Nature of Black Holes

[Mordred]

Let's clarify what I've read thus far.

 

1) You don't like mass effects mass.

2) You didn't know pressure is involved in expansion.

3) you thought the CMB colors reflected dispersion of light.

4) you argued against developing your model with thermodynamics and just wanted density.

5) you originally modelled helicity as meaning different velocities but didn't specify which particles. For that matter you indicated your model previous to 10^-43 seconds doesn't have particles just momentum. Where you tried centrifugal velocity ie 1 rotation granting (I'm not sure space time, particles or kinetic energy)

Then you had that same rotation repeat without loss of momentum yet emit one of the three like some perpetual motion machine.

 

6) you kept using the word "explode"

With regards to expansion.

7) you don't want to use space time curvature, or force in your model. Pretty impossible.

 

Yet you claim your model works better than GR and indirectly indicated particle physics.

Without posting a single equation.

Instead you posted images. Which you didn't understand as being related to the anisotrophies described via redshift in the Sache Wolfe effect.

 

Tell me are you aware of slow roll on inflation,

Lets describe the sequence.

 

1) inflation starts cause doesn't matter. For this.

 

2) inflates rapidly the volume of the observable universe 60 e folds. Roughly a 10^90 times it's original volume in far less than 1 second.

 

3) this causes supercooling during the inflation cycle.

4) inflation slow rolls to a stop, this causes reheating.

 

Does it matter if the universe is curved or flat prior to inflation?

Does it matter if anisotrophies are present.

With such a huge change in volume, pressure, density and temperature. Any pre conditions is effectively washed away. Rebalancing any anisotropic regions or curvature.

 

 

 

I would strongly advise studying textbooks not pop media literature.

 

When we ask for citation post peer review materials not pop media articles. They mean absolutely nothing to me.

 

 

Perhaps you might want to think about how to go about describing your model better. Don't skip the essential steps. Use at least some equations to avoid confusion. The above list is based on how I've read your posts thus far.( including the thread this split from)

Edited July 6, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

Why do you keep missing the key aspects on the replies....We were specifically talking about the chirality theory in regards to possible different Higgs interactions

It's hard for me to discuss Higgs interactions since I don't believe that Higgs give mass. So those "explanations" are not to be taken in consideration. Nobody can explain how Higgs works. They fall back on Higgs field. Nothing convincing.

 

 

 

I never ever reply on a forum a non mainstream answer.

 

Which I appreciate as I already said. And I always say why I disagree.

 

 

 

Far more professional scientists in far greater number and knowledge than anyone on this forum, have tried to disprove both.

But not with my arguments. That "battle" has to be fought with every means and "facts" available; you cannot accept debating only on one side rules. Specially when those rules are based mostly on false notions (gravity).

 

 

 

The standard model of particle physics has been and still is incredibly successful of previously predicting never before seen particles and then finding them later on.

Except that there is a second generation of gluon that isn't accounted for and there is a surplus of Down quarks not accounted for either. Those are two more predictions to come. As a matter of fact, that particle that showed itself at 125 GeV could be that second gluon; the time range and energy range are about exact.

 

 

 

GR is extremely well tested, so is LCDM.

 

Gr I agree; LCDM I don't. Results of CMB is enough for me.

 

 

 

This is done via the mainstream understanding despite your personal feelings

Once again, it's not personal feelings; I'd prefer that everything official was right. That would be a lot less problems for me. But I can't accept what's not logical, what's "magical" and what's "imagined" to solve problems according to prefixed opinion positions.

 

 

 

If your trying to convince me your model is better.

 

I'm not trying to convince nobody; I' stating what doesn't work and suggesting something that should.

 

 

 

The misconceptions in this thread clearly tells me how little you feel about mainstream physics.

I don't feel anything about mainstream physics, I feel bad about its anomalies. So the point would be to determinate those misconceptions which I think, maybe, you tried to do, but did not succeed if you did. Giving interpretations as being facts is not acceptable however complicated are the explanations.

 

 

 

As stated before gluons don't jump into our universe. There is no outside source for them to jump from.

That "outside" source they could "jump" from, is Planck's epoch which nobody knows about and on what only scientists have the right to speculate on; it seems.

 

 

 

Yet you state your universe is singular. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Sorry impossible for me to understand that phrase. Would you please explain?

 

 

 

Yet you refuse to accept the Higgs which can account for chirality.

 

Higgs doesn't account for anything. Higgs does what scientists want him to do. It gives mass to Z and W bosons, for others it gives mass to every particle and on top of that it accounts for chirality. What else will it do before the next decade? Dark matter accounts for the surplus of speed of stars far from a center of galaxy but nobody mentions the problem of identical speed of a great part of stars before even getting to those stars. Dark energy accounts for expansion acceleration when referential objects are massive and have inertia and surely proper velocity. And you say that what I suggest has no sense whatsoever?

 

I don't say you couldn't be right for the most part of mainstream physics but you're surely wrong where it's nonsense.

 

 

 

The lake statement doesn't make any sense.

It was made by astrophysicists in the sixties. I didn't make it up. And it didn't mean there was no fluctuations on that "surface of lake".

 

 

 

All particles are both particle like and wavelike.

The particles came out of the surface of the lake. Today you put that energy in a graduated box at a thickness of zero and you show fluctuation (waves) going up and down each side of that zero. But you don't remember that those waves don't have any thickness even if they fluctuate. So who is showing nonsense there?

 

 

 

GR is highly successful in that false notion you refuse to accept.

The false notion doesn't belong to GR; it belongs to Newton's gravity. Mass don't attract each other! End of the problem.

 

 

 

If you did then why do you have a problem understanding the space time relation of gravity and pressure relations???

 

I don't have any problems there since gravity is the base producing pressure, density, temperature etc. But gravity doesn't have any effect on the general curvature of space-time. The proof is that it is confirmed flat and all indications since 30 years ago tends to support this flatness.

 

 

 

Your light diffusion analogy is another case. Which I had to correct you on.

 

I'm not the one to be corrected, you have to correct the scientists of Planck that came with this as a new factual information.

 

 

 

then use the force carrying gluon in your descriptive. Did the term vector gauge boson not indicate anything to you?

 

Any particle called a "vector" is a particle that "carries" something out of nowhere meaning "not explained". That is obvious in the word "vector" itself.

 

 

 

What is energy, "the ability to perform work"

 

Exactly. And what is "work"? Its always a movement of some sort. So at the base of every "work" performed, is kinetic energy. All kind of energy comes from kinetic energy. That's not news.

 

 

 

what is force. "In physics, a force is any interaction that tends to change the motion of an object.

So a "force" is energy. No problem there. But who needs a "force" when it has energy available?

 

 

 

a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity

 

No. The real fact is: Energy can cause an object with inertia to change its velocity.

 

 

 

Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or a pull.

Sure. "Push" and "Pull" are good physics terms. In fact it represents the characteristic of dark energy and gravitation in the mind of many.

 

 

 

Force carrying particles are needed. As energy DOES NOT exist on its own

 

Did I ever say that energy existed on its own. Everywhere I suggested energy, there was something that was "manifesting" it. But that something was not the energy. The gluon is not your nuclear energy so what is your nuclear energy that is not the gluon? You have to separate the gluon from the nuclear energy, and you're the one who says it doesn't exist on its own?

 

What I say is the topology of the gluon directs things to its center and the "pressure" (you love the word) given to that point stops it from expanding producing a space-time deformation that has gravity as a consequence. Where do you find my energy "on its own" in all this. All I have is expansion and the consequence gravitation. Furthermore I described to you a possibility of origin of the kinetic energy that explains the Big bang. But instead of evaluating it you jump to the conclusion that it's nonsense. So your own energy "on its own" that can't exist "on its own" is not nonsense to you? Nowhere do I have energy on its own in what I suggested. Sorry about that.

 

 

 

There is no way one particle can influence another without a mediator particle.

Which particle influences another? All particles do is try to be in equilibrium with its environment. They simply eject or accept quantum of energy to do it.

 

 

 

So tell me how does your model possibly describe how matter moves

 

I already explained it. Proper (personal) velocity (or speed) of massless particles (objects) had been propelled in our space-time. Gaining mass slowed all of them at first because of gained inertia. Speed was, for some of them more decreased by accretion, and for other increased by tidal wave effect when brushing against deformation around them. But those proper velocity had nothing to do with expansion. In fact all mass particles have nothing to do with expansion.

 

@ Strange

 

 

 

Although "dark matter" could require a change to the way gravity works, more and more evidence is pointing to it being matter. As in many examples in the past, we haven't yet detected the particle.

That's because it's not a particle. It's an expanded imprint in the "fabric" of the universe. In fact it's that first Russian doll I talked about earlier. And it englobes all matter without giving it mass.

 

 

 

You are claiming that theories are wrong because you don't believe in them.

 

Can't you read? I said the reason was I didn't believe in "magic".

 

 

 

Don't be so childish. Newton developed mathematical models for his theories.

 

Who's childish here? Newton didn't believe in his notion but acquiesced that it worked to explain events observed at the time.

 

 

 

That doesn't make much sense.

 

It's not my fault if you can't see it.

 

Mordred

 

 

 

Yet you claim your model works better than GR and indirectly indicated particle physics.

I don't claim it works better, I say it clarifies it.

 

 

 

Does it matter if the universe is curved or flat prior to inflation?

The question doesn't apply, it's flat.

 

 

 

With such a huge change in volume, pressure, density and temperature.

Which pressure? There's no opposition neither to expansion or inflation. Pressure start appearing on particles when mass particles appeared and that's during inflation. That "pressure" didn't have any effect on expansion. Even inflation didn't have any effect on expansion which continued while space-time was inflating. Just like today, the quantity of massive objects don't have any effect on expansion. Gravity and expansion are separate entities.

 

Expanding space-time has been flat since the beginning and deformed space-time has been deformed in each volume containing matter whit mass energy since the appearance of mass (energy).

 

What can I tell you more? Mass don't "attract" themselves. And that's where the problem starts.

So this is what we should have seen if I have had the occasion to say everything and since I don’t think I’ll have the opportunity I’ll put it right away so you can debate on it:

 

1) Curvature of space-time extends down to the center of gravity of the space-time curvature.

 

2) Quantity of matter occupies space-time; it doesn’t replace it.

 

3) Quantity of matter doesn’t curve space-time; mass energy does

 

4) Since space-time is deformable, it has to have a “fabric”.

 

5) The deformation is not in a “downward” direction, but in a “backward” direction in the space-time metric.

 

6) A black hole is not a “hole” it’s a “ball” (volume). If it’s rotating, it has the form of a football; if not, the form of a basketball.

 

7) Expansion is the gradual growth of space-time metric.

 

8) A black hole is a collapsing of space-time metric.

 

9) To prompt collapsing you have to add mass energy to a deformation. The only way to do it is add matter particles that contains mass energy, on the surface of the object you want to collapse.

 

10) Quantity of matter is not mass energy. The total of each is not identical.

 

11) Gravity supply a direction toward a definite point; expansion supply a direction toward every points. These directions are exactly contrary from one another.

 

12) Our universe is definitively flat; confirmed by Planck’s satellite.

 

13) Space-time deformation occurs when mass energy stops a point from keeping expanding; so surrounding points gradually recover expansion “ratio” depending of their distance from the “blocked point”.

 

14) The two contrary movements are identical as the centrifugal and centripetal effects from rotation. But our universe doesn’t rotate. So gravity and expansion comes from before the birth of our universe “volume”.

 

15) Gravity zero at the center of a sphere is on a “fictional point” because pressure from all sides equalizes itself. Space-time points are not fictional; so the pressure on a centered point of gravity is far from zero. It feels the total pressure from all sides.

 

16) Weight is the difference of velocity between two objects that joins centers of gravity. It determine the pressure made by the less mass energy object on the surface of the biggest mass energy object.

 

17) Matter is only a “passenger” of the volume of a space-time deformation. It’s not a “main player” in cosmological events. The fact is that it counts for 4, 7% of the universe. But matter contains a great quantity of kinetic energy imprisoned in it which we call “mass energy”.

 

18) Left handed massless neutrinos are responsible of the perception of distances and time (space-time) because their helicity slows them from light speed. They originated from Planck’s epoch and were propelled in all direction at the Big bang, thus giving depth to the previous surface.

 

19) At the Big bang, gluons being too small to manifest themselves, stayed in Planck’s epoch rotating and continuing slowly to gain size. It acquired the size of 10^-35 meter when space-time had expanded to 10^-15 meter. That’s when it appeared in our universe. The time was 10^-36 sec after time = zero and it naturally adopted a “field of action” of 10^-15 meter. Which is the size of a nucleus.

 

20) The appearance of the gluon in our space-time, rapidly followed by its disintegration (decay) into successive mass particles (quarks) caused what we call the inflation. It lasted from 10^-36 sec until 10^-32 sec during which period, all mass particles (quarks) were created by successive decays.

 

21) Different moment of appearance of neutrino and gluon separated the “effect” of each from one another. The topology of the “fabric” of expanding space-time was contrary to the topology of gluon’s “action field” (space-time). Inflation was something different from expansion; even though both have almost identical “effect” on the volume of the universe. They are not identical events and don't have the same cause.

 

22) Mass particles appeared during inflation period; but they appeared successively proportionally to the density of energy of their environment. Which means that even during inflation, expansion was still diluting the density of energy of the flat (neutrinos) universe. The mass particles (quarks), while decaying, adopted gradually less mass energy to get equilibrium with their “outside world”. They finally got this equilibrium in reuniting three by three in the “action field” of the former gluon. This tells us that “entropy” is the result of a universe that tries to acquire equilibrium; not aiming at chaos.

 

23) This also tells us that the “action field” of the gluon stayed imprinted in the fabric of this “action field” even after the disintegration of the gluon. It also means that the “intensity” of mass energy of succeeding mass particles where also imprinted on top of the pervious prints. Giving a kind of Russian dolls structure to those impressions.

 

24) Space-time deformation’s effects, of that period of early universe, had to be proportional to the surrounding density of energy. So its effect on events of that time was naturally proportionally equivalent to its effect on today’s events. Which means that gravity of that far back period had the same effect as today’s gravity. This is a natural “fact” deduction; not a deduced hypothesis from “tools” used for interpretations.

 

25) Expansion pulled the two front and back faces of the surface gluon from one another; creating two “sides of surfaces” mirror of each other.

 

26) Mass energy particles have kinetic energy imprisoned in its volume of space-time where topology is contrary to expansion. It acquired this kinetic energy when being only a “one side surface”. Kinetic energy responding to its topology pushed on the point topology was targeting and made the “one side surface” particle curl up and trap that kinetic energy inside its newly made volume.

 

27) Strong nuclear force doesn’t exist as a “force”; it’s a consequence of the topology inside the field action of a gluon. The notion of “force coming out of nowhere” doesn’t have its place in physics; regardless of the quantity of “explanations” you add to cover its unknown origin.

 

28) The rotation of cosmological objects starts when the first two particles that merges their center of gravity and tries to occupy that center of gravity. Pushing one another results in both revolving around their common center of gravity. Added particles increased the speed and the pressure on centered particles increasing mass energy and increasing the “action field” of its space-time deformation.

 

29) Chemical bonding could be a consequence of “tidal effect” of two deformations of atoms where the valence shell electronic cloud of both atoms are pulled toward each other until the energy of both valence shells stabilizes. Which eliminates another “mysterious force”.

 

30) To explain the origin of our tri-dimensional universe, we have to consider the two-dimensional of Planck’s epoch. Composed of unidimensional points, based on the fact, now proven, that our universe is Euclidian. An initial point of 0+ energy “virtualised” itself by starting to rotate. Centrifugal effect obliged it to duplicate. The following points always arose from where the initial point had appeared; adding 0+ kinetic energy every time, which compensated for the farther points increasing speed. At a certain tension of the stress on the surface, it separated in two, projecting one part in all directions and the other part in a bundle that reversed it rotation. The “all directions” projected particles gave depth to half of the original surface creating our tri-dimensional universe.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

It's hard for me to discuss Higgs interactions since I don't believe that Higgs give mass. So those "explanations" are not to be taken in consideration. Nobody can explain how Higgs works. They fall back on Higgs field. Nothing convincing.

 

But not with my arguments. That "battle" has to be fought with every means and "facts" available; you cannot accept debating only on one side rules. Specially when those rules are based mostly on false notions (gravity).

 

Gr I agree; LCDM I don't. Results of CMB is enough for me.

 

What a load of crud. The Planck data confirms the accuracy of LCDM to an extremely high accuracy. Read their overview article.

 

How in the world can you use the statement false notion gravity then state you accept GR:?:

 

You make mistakes and inconsistent responses like tbis. Post absolutely zero zip mathematics and expect professional Scientists to consider your ideas??:? Come on get real.

 

 

Study. I supplied you with a full length textbook.

 

Learn how gravity and vaccuum aka pressure determines expansion.

Study the ideal gas laws.

 

Read the overview of Cosmology link.

Read chapter 3 of particle physics of the Early universe.

 

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf:"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

 

in every one of these professional peer reviewed articles. Pressure is explained.

Photons and neutrinos even your quarks and gluons exert pressure. All relativistic particles do. In the Early universe when there are free quarks they exert pressure. Today there is no free quarks.

 

Matter is pressureless. Never heard the term pressure less dust? They are referring to baryonic matter. Why because it's % of influence in expansion is too miniscule to count.

 

Only fermions count as matter particles via the Pauli exclusion principle.

 

Your personal feelings means nothing to professional Scientists. You can either learn why they accept the current models. Or not.

 

You won't convince anyone unless you can mathematically compare your model to thiers. Which means you must first learn their models. This is a necessary step as no one will listen till they can accept that you truly understand the current models.

 

It would be like saying I don't agree with relativity because I don't understand it. Here is my solution.

Which is what your stating about the Higgs field. I don't accept it because I don't understand it. Here is my solution.

 

Why would anyone listen to that?

Maybe this series of articles will help.

 

https://briankoberle...-four-horsemen/

 

https://briankoberle...nce-of-the-hag/

 

https://briankoberle...orge-of-heaven/

 

https://briankoberle...-of-other-days/

 

https://briankoberle...radle-to-grave/

 

On the series below he covers the Higgs field in one of his site links with and without the math.

 

http://profmattstras...-higgs-faq-2-0/

 

http://profmattstras...physics-basics/

 

http://profmattstrassler.com/

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

How in the world can you use the statement false notion gravity then state you accept GR:?:

Because GR is not based on attractions of quantity of matter.

 

 

 

Post absolutely zero zip mathematics and expect professional Scientists to consider your ideas??:? Come on get real.

 

Professiomal scientists? Well them too, but I'm a person that has developped an opinion on the evolution of the universe that seems (to me) more descriptive of the reality involved to undestand it. I'm adressing myself to anybody that want's to debate on it.

 

 

 

Your personal feelings means nothing to professional Scientists.

I repeat; I don't have any personal feelings on physics or anything else for that matter. My personal feelings are oriented to my inner personal being. Everything exterior I live with; and nothing else.

 

 

 

Which is what your stating about the Higgs field. I don't accept it because I don't understand it.

 

Sorry it' not the case. I don't accept Higgs boson because it's not logical and nobody can explain it logically.

 

Thanks for the links I'll look on it.

the last link with articles is very interesting thank you. Further more the articles are very clear.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Not being logical to you does not mean a thing is wrong. It could simply mean that you do not understand enough about it. Please review the rules of this area of the forum. You have made scientific claims, yet provided no model or evidence to really back it up. You are required to do this and should you continue not to, this thread will be closed.

 

Do not respond to this note within the thread.

[Mordred]

 

 

1) Curvature of space-time extends down to the center of gravity of the space-time curvature.

 

2) Quantity of matter occupies space-time; it doesnt replace it.

 

3) Quantity of matter doesnt curve space-time; mass energy does

 

4) Since space-time is deformable, it has to have a fabric.

 

5) The deformation is not in a downward direction, but in a backward direction in the space-time metric.

 

6) A black hole is not a hole its a ball (volume). If its rotating, it has the form of a football; if not, the form of a basketball.

 

7) Expansion is the gradual growth of space-time metric.

 

8) A black hole is a collapsing of space-time metric.

 

9) To prompt collapsing you have to add mass energy to a deformation. The only way to do it is add matter particles that contains mass energy, on the surface of the object you want to collapse.

 

10) Quantity of matter is not mass energy. The total of each is not identical.

 

11) Gravity supply a direction toward a definite point; expansion supply a direction toward every points. These directions are exactly contrary from one another.

 

12) Our universe is definitively flat; confirmed by Plancks satellite.

 

13) Space-time deformation occurs when mass energy stops a point from keeping expanding; so surrounding points gradually recover expansion ratio depending of their distance from the blocked point.

 

14) The two contrary movements are identical as the centrifugal and centripetal effects from rotation. But our universe doesnt rotate. So gravity and expansion comes from before the birth of our universe volume.

 

15) Gravity zero at the center of a sphere is on a fictional point because pressure from all sides equalizes itself. Space-time points are not fictional; so the pressure on a centered point of gravity is far from zero. It feels the total pressure from all sides.

 

16) Weight is the difference of velocity between two objects that joins centers of gravity. It determine the pressure made by the less mass energy object on the surface of the biggest mass energy object.

 

17) Matter is only a passenger of the volume of a space-time deformation. Its not a main player in cosmological events. The fact is that it counts for 4, 7% of the universe. But matter contains a great quantity of kinetic energy imprisoned in it which we call mass energy.

 

18) Left handed massless neutrinos are responsible of the perception of distances and time (space-time) because their helicity slows them from light speed. They originated from Plancks epoch and were propelled in all direction at the Big bang, thus giving depth to the previous surface.

 

19) At the Big bang, gluons being too small to manifest themselves, stayed in Plancks epoch rotating and continuing slowly to gain size. It acquired the size of 10^-35 meter when space-time had expanded to 10^-15 meter. Thats when it appeared in our universe. The time was 10^-36 sec after time = zero and it naturally adopted a field of action of 10^-15 meter. Which is the size of a nucleus.

 

20) The appearance of the gluon in our space-time, rapidly followed by its disintegration (decay) into successive mass particles (quarks) caused what we call the inflation. It lasted from 10^-36 sec until 10^-32 sec during which period, all mass particles (quarks) were created by successive decays.

 

21) Different moment of appearance of neutrino and gluon separated the effect of each from one another. The topology of the fabric of expanding space-time was contrary to the topology of gluons action field (space-time). Inflation was something different from expansion; even though both have almost identical effect on the volume of the universe. They are not identical events and don't have the same cause.

 

22) Mass particles appeared during inflation period; but they appeared successively proportionally to the density of energy of their environment. Which means that even during inflation, expansion was still diluting the density of energy of the flat (neutrinos) universe. The mass particles (quarks), while decaying, adopted gradually less mass energy to get equilibrium with their outside world. They finally got this equilibrium in reuniting three by three in the action field of the former gluon. This tells us that entropy is the result of a universe that tries to acquire equilibrium; not aiming at chaos.

 

23) This also tells us that the action field of the gluon stayed imprinted in the fabric of this action field even after the disintegration of the gluon. It also means that the intensity of mass energy of succeeding mass particles where also imprinted on top of the pervious prints. Giving a kind of Russian dolls structure to those impressions.

 

24) Space-time deformations effects, of that period of early universe, had to be proportional to the surrounding density of energy. So its effect on events of that time was naturally proportionally equivalent to its effect on todays events. Which means that gravity of that far back period had the same effect as todays gravity. This is a natural fact deduction; not a deduced hypothesis from tools used for interpretations.

 

25) Expansion pulled the two front and back faces of the surface gluon from one another; creating two sides of surfaces mirror of each other.

 

26) Mass energy particles have kinetic energy imprisoned in its volume of space-time where topology is contrary to expansion. It acquired this kinetic energy when being only a one side surface. Kinetic energy responding to its topology pushed on the point topology was targeting and made the one side surface particle curl up and trap that kinetic energy inside its newly made volume.

 

27) Strong nuclear force doesnt exist as a force; its a consequence of the topology inside the field action of a gluon. The notion of force coming out of nowhere doesnt have its place in physics; regardless of the quantity of explanations you add to cover its unknown origin.

 

28) The rotation of cosmological objects starts when the first two particles that merges their center of gravity and tries to occupy that center of gravity. Pushing one another results in both revolving around their common center of gravity. Added particles increased the speed and the pressure on centered particles increasing mass energy and increasing the action field of its space-time deformation.

 

29) Chemical bonding could be a consequence of tidal effect of two deformations of atoms where the valence shell electronic cloud of both atoms are pulled toward each other until the energy of both valence shells stabilizes. Which eliminates another mysterious force.

 

30) To explain the origin of our tri-dimensional universe, we have to consider the two-dimensional of Plancks epoch. Composed of unidimensional points, based on the fact, now proven, that our universe is Euclidian. An initial point of 0+ energy virtualised itself by starting to rotate. Centrifugal effect obliged it to duplicate. The following points always arose from where the initial point had appeared; adding 0+ kinetic energy every time, which compensated for the farther points increasing speed. At a certain tension of the stress on the surface, it separated in two, projecting one part in all directions and the other part in a bundle that reversed it rotation. The all directions projected particles gave depth to half of the original surface creating our tri-dimensional universe.

1 2 are fine. On three mass and energy has equivelence via e=mc^2

 

4 well I'm not going to repeat myself a third time spacetime is not some mysterious fabric.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89395-what-is-space-made-of/#entry870133

 

5 and 6 are incorrect. You need to look at the problem as a coordinate change. GR is modelled on terms of coordinate rotations and boosts. Google Lorentz transformation.

6 is completely wrong....except the part not a hole.

7 I can live with in terms of volume/coordinate change.

8) I assume you mean the singularity itself. Unfortunately not completely accurate. The collapse is an artifact of the chosen coordinate system. It is possible to change the coordinate system to avoid the singularity issue.

 

9) is wrong. Any mass body can technically form a BH. If it's radius falls below its Schwartzchild radius.

 

10) is wrong e=mc^2. Mass and energy are equivelent. Matter is any particle that occupies a volume of space. Google Pauli exclusion principle. Fermions are considered matter particles. Bosons are not.

11) clarity I can't make heads or tails out of that statement.

12)yes but I don't believe you understand what universe curvature means as you don't place any value in the critical density formula. Nor in vaccuum/pressure to energy density relations via the Einstein field equations stress energy tensor.

13 and 14 are wrong.

15 is wrong as well or so poorly worded it reads as wrong.

16 weight depends on the gravitational force where you measure it. If you weigh a 1 ton brick on Earth at sea level. That same brick won't weigh 1 ton on the moon.( really this is extremely basic physics terminology. Mass is not weight)

17) I can consider that statement accurate. Which confuses me why you didn't correlate the mass energy relation in numbers 3 and 10?

18 and 19 are wrong, this is according to your ideas and model. Not mainstream physics.

20) by which inflation model? Certainly not in any of the 70+ viable inflation models in "inflationaris Encyclopedia" I posted to you previously. Sounds like your own once again.

21 to 28 is all based on your ideas and quite frankly you don't understand particle symmetry and gauge couplings/group theory to make those determinations. If you did you would have already posted the required math. Lie algebra isn't terribly difficult. For that matter the matrix calculations in the SO(3)*

SO(2)*U(1) covers the standard model groups. SO(3.1) being also the Lorentz group. (This group doesn't include the Higgs interactions)

 

Just a side note your definition of a vector is wrong on your previous post. A vector is a scalar quantity with a direction.

26 27 and 28 is wrong.

 

so is 29 and 30

 

 

Guess you didn't learn much. Might be time to read the mainstream physics articles.

( instead of letting your personal model get in the way of learning)

By the way I do study non mainstream articles all the time. The author however must show a clear understanding of the mainstream physics before I consider them as being viable.

(Must also include the related mathematics)

That list includes MOND, trespace, Poplowskii's universe inside an EH. AFD/CFT, LQC is potentially close enough to mainstream that I consider it. F® gravity etc etc. Little hint any peer reviewed article compares its model against the current recognized concordance model in any application. You can learn a ton from those correlations.

 

Poplowskii did a great job modelling a homogeneous and isotropic universe with spin and torsion. However he couldn't explain early large scale structure formation within his model.

[Andre Lefebvre]

Thank you Mordred.

 

I really appreciate you taking time to argue those 30 topics,

[Mordred]

Too lengthy I didn't feel like writing a book. Lol. I already supplied those. Its probably better discussing each point seperately rather than a one shot effort.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

I agree; but I had to put everything at least once because they relate to each other in the "big picture".

 

Even when you agree; for example with no: 1; There's a lot to be said in regard to that center of gravity. For example: the interaction between the center of gravity of the deformation containing Jupiter which can "displace" the center of gravity of the deformation containing our solar system.

It's not the centers of gravity of the quantity of matter of both objects that is involved but the center of gravity of both deformations of space-time. Am I correct in the way of seeing that event?

Edited July 7, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

Ok let's look at the Lorentz transform itself in some detail.

 

( This will take some time to post)

 

Lorentz transformation.

 

First two postulates.

 

1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical

2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames.

 

Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction.

 

Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1.

A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above

in space time ds between two events is

[latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex]

 

Invoking speed of light postulate 2.

 

[latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex]

 

Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex]

 

Time dilation

dt=proper time ds=line element

 

since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant.

 

an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt.

 

[latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex]

 

so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation

 

[latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex]

 

So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex]

 

Now consider the above and consider the equivalence principle

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

 

This should help with your last post.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

Thanks I'll try to get that in. And then, I hope I'll have my answer to my question.

[Mordred]

No problem. This site has a free to distribute textbook on SR.

 

It's probably one of the less math heavy training books available. The author is a member on another forum I frequent.

http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/

Edited July 7, 2015 by Mordred

[Mordred]

I have a question for you. Do you find this level of mathematics comfortable enough to relate to ?

 

I can post the ideal gas laws in the same structure and format and tie it into universe geometry if you can relate to the coordinate system above.

 

The links I provided on the Higgs simplifying the Higgs field does a better job than I would. I tend to overcomplicate the Higgs interactions.

 

Although you don't agree with LCDM itself. I would recommend learning first the FLRW metric. Trust me from personal experience, the FLRW metric is far easier to understand than the Einstein field equations, or field and string theories.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

Thank you. To my point of view, the simpler is always the better. So if it's possible, let me have it.

[Mordred]

Kk I'm in flight right now I'll work out the ideal gas laws for you to correlate pressure, entropy, temperature etc in terms of particle influence in an adiabatic fluid.

[Andre Lefebvre]

Thank you very much. I took a break and I'm now reading Lee Smolin's

• Three roads to quantum gravity

It's quite interesting actualy

 

Take care

[Mordred]

Just be careful Lee Smolin likes to push his own models. I do respect his articles but they can distract from mainstream physics, which should be the first step to understand.

(This does make understanding of other models simpler)

Or rather concordance acceptance, ( what one can learn via textbooks). Basics first alternative later. Or as they say eat the Apple one bite at a time.

[Andre Lefebvre]

Weinberg I read along time ago. I also like is wrinting.

[ajb]

Just be careful Lee Smolin likes to push his own models.

His book on the three roads is very good and is before he started 'string bashing'. It is not too technical, but is far short of a popular account.

[Mordred]

Thank you. To my point of view, the simpler is always the better. So if it's possible, let me have it.

Well sometimes the simpler the better leaves out critical details. However we can cover pressure, entropy, energy/mass density etc using statistical mechanics and the FLRW metric and save the stress energy tensor for later on.

 

After thinking about it the mannerism to learn this is better suited to the right sequence of articles specifically covering the ideal gas laws.

 

When you read these keep in mind all particles with momentum can exert pressure. So for the first article they will mention container walls.

Obviously the universe doesn't have container walls. The pressure is a measure of interparticle interactions with each other. In other words the container wall is the particles in the same region.

 

Now as to why relativistic radiation exerts pressure but not matter. The reason is quite simple. Relativistic radiation has greater momentum.

 

Go through the first article. Get familiar with

Pv=nRT.

 

The second article will take you from this into the FLRW metric. Including the little steps I may miss.

 

http://vallance.chem.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/PropertiesOfGasesLectureNotes.pdf

 

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/SPCnotes.pdf

 

Keep in mind ideal gas laws is a method of averaging complex multiparticle systems to good approximation.

 

You'll note the last article also covers universe geometry.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

Thank you. I'm on it.

 

One thing though. I'm keeping in mind your suggestion that in flat space-time something applies pressure on the curvature of the universe because of gas laws, which says having the same pressure wherever you check in the gas.

 

Taking the U-tube manometer as an example,

 

It works on the same principle as a water level used in a hose. If I have a “bubble” of air (gas) in the water of the hose, the level at each end is not at the same height because the gas in the bubble is pressurised by the weight of the water and is not situated at the center of the length of the hose. Nevertheless the pressure of the air (gas) in the bubble is due to the weight of the water pressing on each side of the air bubble; and is different from the “weight” (Pressure) of the “free” air (gas) coming at each end of the hose. But I agree that inside the air “bubble” the pressure is “homogeneous”.

 

Regarding the temperature (my comments are in red):

 

We can make two observations:

1. Increasing the temperature broadens the distribution and shifts the peak to higher velocities. This means that there are more ‘fast’ particles at higher temperatures, but there will still be many ‘slow’ ones as well. (It also mean that each particle movement is “using” more space so it increases pressure of the total space)

2. Decreasing the mass of the gas particles (is either decreasing the number of particles (diluting the gas, so diminishing the pressure) or changing for another gas whose each particle mass is less) has the same effect as increasing the temperature i.e. heavier particles have a slower, narrower distribution of speeds than lighter particles. (But the heavy gas particles have more space to use (less pressure on them) and so move faster; or the less mass particles move faster than the previous particles for the same reason. Finally, decreasing the mass of the gas (or of the particles) is decreasing the pressure). Which explains why decreasing the mass doesn't change the temperature.

 

I must be wrong somewhere?

 

Edited July 8, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

( key note the equations of state for a particular era is an average of particle contributors with their degrees of freedom) ie in the radiation dominant era. The main contributors is photons and neutrinos. ( matter is negligible in influence during this era)

 

(Hint if you have questions on the first article, particularly on enthalpy and entropy post the question in the classical forum. Studiot love's answering these)

 

By the way +1 for showing a strong interest in studying

His book on the three roads is very good and is before he started 'string bashing'. It is not too technical, but is far short of a popular account.

I may pick up a copy Somehow 60+ various physics textbooks isn't enough lol

Edited July 8, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

You'll find it at this link:

 

http://alpha.sinp.msu.ru/~panov/LibBooks/SMOLIN/Lee_Smolin-Three_Roads_to_Quantum_Gravity-Basic_Books(2002).pdf

 

"By the way +1 for showing a strong interest in studying"

 

Thank you. I see it as personal reseach; being doing it for 60 years.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

Thank you. I'm on it.

 

One thing though. I'm keeping in mind your suggestion that in flat space-time something applies pressure on the curvature of the universe because of gas laws, which says having the same pressure wherever you check in the gas.

 

 

Not quite how cosmology determined universe geometry involves pressure yes. The metric of flat geometry is determined by the critical density formula. The pressure term comes into play mainly in expansion rates.

 

If the universe actual density equals the calculated critical density the universe is flat.

 

Pressure comes into play as energy density has a pressure relation via the equations of state.

 

[latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex]

 

The critical density formula calculation involves both gravity and pressure. Later on I'll post how it's derived. I'll have to show the stress tensor relations as part of it.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

I'll wait till I get to the topic.

 

I'd like to know where I was "missing something" in the remarks I made earlier (post 04.04) or if I was on the mark?

 

Before i put more remarks on futher information of the first article. Which, I must say is a marvelous source of understanding the subject.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre